An alarming number of self described libertarians/anarchists support Trump.

[BigDH01]

As well he should in some areas. What Bill Gates thinks about something like IP patent laws or net neutrality is way more important and relevant for policy makers than what some random voter who works at McDonald's in Topeka thinks. He's a Subject Matter Expert and the meritocracy depends on input from key stakeholders like him to make good policy. Hell, if anything you'd probably want to increase his influence rather than reduce it since when you allow total control over decision making to Joe Q. Public they tend to do stupid shit like support Brexit.

Sure, but his wealth buys him influence in any area he so chooses. He effectively becomes an unelected official. Someone who made their fortunes doing X now deciding Y. Furthermore, being a subject matter expert doesn't necessitate he does the "right" thing in regards to the average consumer. There are plenty of highly intelligent and very wealthy media moguls against net neutrality, for instance.

The President and members of Congress already have hundreds or thousands times more influence than others, so what's your point? Unlike you just because someone's job field is politician rather than CEO that doesn't mean I give them more trust.

I voted in my representative's elections to represent me on matters of the public and private good. I have or may not have voted stupidly, but at least I did so with the intention that he or she would act in my perceived best interest. This is not analogous to buying an iPhone.

 

[glenn1]

Sure, but his wealth buys him influence in any area he so chooses. He effectively becomes an unelected official. Someone who made their fortunes doing X now deciding Y. Furthermore, being a subject matter expert doesn't necessitate he does the "right" thing in regards to the average consumer. There are plenty of highly intelligent and very wealthy media moguls against net neutrality, for instance.

I voted in my representative's elections to represent me on matters of the public and private good. I have or may not have voted stupidly, but at least I did so with the intention that he or she would act in my perceived best interest. This is not analogous to buying an iPhone.

That's an artificial, superficial, and ultimately very futile standard considering we now have President Trump. And I'm unsure why you think that even if you somehow got your wish and removed all power from the rich "unelected officials" that somehow the actual elected officials would somehow start working in your best interest. As has been amply demonstrated in many elections and policy arguments what voters think is their "perceived interest" is anything but and is often 180° harmful to their actual interests.

 

[BigDH01]

That's an artificial, superficial, and ultimately very futile standard considering we now have President Trump.

I don't particularly like the guy, but he was elected using the rules established. And in four years, he'll have to once again get elected if he wishes to remain in power. It's also important to note that the institutions he now governs have been modeled explicitly so that someone like him could not do oversized damage. In other words, he has a lot more influence than I do in a system designed to protect me from that influence. Another important differentiator.

And I'm unsure why you think that even if you somehow got your wish and removed all power from the rich "unelected officials" that somehow the actual elected officials would somehow start working in your best interest.

I don't think removing all power from the wealthy is in any way achievable, nor is it my wish. I'm merely pointing out that a massive imbalance in power amongst individual citizenry is probably not healthy nor desirable. It's elimination is impossible, but it's possible it could be reduced to some extent. The advantage of elected officials is that they need to get re-elected and the constitution is designed to protect me from their power.

As has been amply demonstrated in many elections and policy arguments what voters think is their "perceived interest" is anything but and is often 180° harmful to their actual interests.

Sure, but it was their choice to make. I can't stop someone from slitting their own wrists, but it would be a crime if their neighbor did it for them.

 

[Vic]

These are the kind of "libertarians" who support the worst aspects of statism, ie police states, drug prohibition, bloated militaries, and the denial of equal protection of the laws to women, minorities, and immigrants.
In other words, bullshitters. Fascists who believe that liberty means the right to rest their boots on the necks of others.

 

[glenn1]

I don't think removing all power from the wealthy is in any way achievable, nor is it my wish. I'm merely pointing out that a massive imbalance in power amongst individual citizenry is probably not healthy nor desirable. It's elimination is impossible, but it's possible it could be reduced to some extent. The advantage of elected officials is that they need to get re-elected and the constitution is designed to protect me from their power.

Yes and the best way of doing so would be reducing the size and scope of government. The naiveté to think you can empower the government to tax and spend trillions and yet somehow quarantine the rich from that money is somewhat baffling. Each time you seem to think you can deploy government as your heavy to go shake down the rich and give you their loot, and each time the government does basically the opposite and you act surprised. Is this you?

 

[boomerang]

Those that bemoan the power of the wealthy were very, very willing to vote for a powerful wealthy woman last November. All a person has to do is put a D next to their name and say a few well chosen words and these same numbskulls will vote for that person thereby perpetuating that which they proclaim to disdain the most.

These arguments against the powerful, the wealthy have been going on since the dawn of mankind. Somebody has always got more than somebody else and somebody has always got power over somebody else. These rules apply in Capitalistic, Socialist and Communist societies. You'd think that at some point the mindsets based in jealousy would eventually peter out but they show no signs of doing so in my lifetime.

These "discussions" are both pointless and boring.

glenn1 has got it exactly right. To make society more equitable you shrink government. We have a leader that wishes to do this and in a big way and people are too damned scared to let him do it. That, and the corruption has become so deeply entrenched that career politician's are doing everything they can to maintain the status quo. They didn't run to serve the people. They didn't run for the pay and bennies despite them being top-notch. They ran to get a big piece of the taxpayer pie and a piece that will continue to give for the rest of their lives. Come into office dead broke and leave a multi-millionaire. That's a pretty good gig and we're complicit in it.

Again, we have a leader that wants to change it. Will we let this opportunity slide by? Why would we want to?

 

[fskimospy]

Those that bemoan the power of the wealthy were very, very willing to vote for a powerful wealthy woman last November. All a person has to do is put a D next to their name and say a few well chosen words and these same numbskulls will vote for that person thereby perpetuating that which they proclaim to disdain the most.

It's almost like winner take all elections are a binary choice or something. How can you not understand such a simple concept? I sincerely think you should be very careful when calling other people numbskulls when you don't understand facts this basic.

These arguments against the powerful, the wealthy have been going on since the dawn of mankind. Somebody has always got more that somebody else and somebody has always got power over somebody else. These rules apply in Capitalistic, Socialist and Communist societies. You'd think that at some point the mindsets based in jealousy would eventually peter out but they show know signs of doing so in my lifetime.

These "discussions" are both pointless and boring.

It's interesting how frequently you come in here to say that the discussions are pointless and boring. Either you're lying to us that you find them pointless and boring or you've got some weird issues where you love participating in things you dislike.

Mostly you seem like an incredibly angry and twisted individual who really wants to rant about how much he hates liberals. Sad!

 

[Jhhnn]

The Libertarian and Green Parties are better than Democrats on all those issues as well. I really don't give a sh!t that you're trying to compare the two worst parties and say "aha, one is even worse than the other" when both suck.

First you give us the "They're just as bad!" routine. When I offer specific examples where that's obviously not true, you just double down on "They're just as bad!" & keep on believing.

I do love the bit about Greens & Libertopians, however. Neither one has ever held power in this country & likely never will so it's impossible to judge them by anything other than their platforms which you claim don't matter anyway.

 

[Jhhnn]

To make society more equitable you shrink government.

Truthiness!

 

[agent00f]

Yes and the best way of doing so would be reducing the size and scope of government. The naiveté to think you can empower the government to tax and spend trillions and yet somehow quarantine the rich from that money is somewhat baffling. Each time you seem to think you can deploy government as your heavy to go shake down the rich and give you their loot, and each time the government does basically the opposite and you act surprised. Is this you?

Those that bemoan the power of the wealthy were very, very willing to vote for a powerful wealthy woman last November. All a person has to do is put a D next to their name and say a few well chosen words and these same numbskulls will vote for that person thereby perpetuating that which they proclaim to disdain the most.

These arguments against the powerful, the wealthy have been going on since the dawn of mankind. Somebody has always got more than somebody else and somebody has always got power over somebody else. These rules apply in Capitalistic, Socialist and Communist societies. You'd think that at some point the mindsets based in jealousy would eventually peter out but they show no signs of doing so in my lifetime.

These "discussions" are both pointless and boring.

glenn1 has got it exactly right. To make society more equitable you shrink government. We have a leader that wishes to do this and in a big way and people are too damned scared to let him do it. That, and the corruption has become so deeply entrenched that career politician's are doing everything they can to maintain the status quo. They didn't run to serve the people. They didn't run for the pay and bennies despite them being top-notch. They ran to get a big piece of the taxpayer pie and a piece that will continue to give for the rest of their lives. Come into office dead broke and leave a multi-millionaire. That's a pretty good gig and we're complicit in it.

Again, we have a leader that wants to change it. Will we let this opportunity slide by? Why would we want to?

Pretty typical degenerates who rant about shitty governance because they make it so.

 

[BigDH01]

Yes and the best way of doing so would be reducing the size and scope of government.

While I agree that, in general, government should be as small as possible, I don't know if this fixes the problem. The whole premise I proposed several posts ago is that even in the absence of government those that have accumulated power will continue to do so. Whether co-opting a large federal government or hiring a private security force, it will be achieved. On a long enough timeline, those situations are equivalent, but only one at least pretends to represent the people (on occasion).

You keep telling me that reducing the size of the government is the answer, but to me it sounds like a Communist telling me that "we just need to work together for the common good." You're describing a situation that simply doesn't exist in the real world. In the absence of a strong central authority, the powerful will just create another.

The naiveté to think you can empower the government to tax and spend trillions and yet somehow quarantine the rich from that money is somewhat baffling.

Where did I suggest this? You keep reading things in my posts that aren't there.

Each time you seem to think you can deploy government as your heavy to go shake down the rich and give you their loot, and each time the government does basically the opposite and you act surprised. Is this you?

Are you even reading my posts? I feel as though at this point you are arguing against a straw man. And yes, current policy has often led to situations in which the upper middle class pay a ridiculous tax burden due to laws meant to target the wealthy (who, of course, can afford to find ways around them). I'm looking at you alternative income tax. However, it doesn't mean that *all* policy is bad. Our government, for instance, could be far more aggressive at breaking up monopolies that exist in inefficient markets, or end the parasitism in finance by simply giving more money to enforce fraud laws. Neither of those involve the shakedown of the rich.

Universal healthcare might be another good policy in the long run. It removes one huge barrier to entry for many markets and thus encourages entrepreneurship.

 

[Vic]

Those that bemoan the power of the wealthy were very, very willing to vote for a powerful wealthy woman last November. All a person has to do is put a D next to their name and say a few well chosen words and these same numbskulls will vote for that person thereby perpetuating that which they proclaim to disdain the most.

These arguments against the powerful, the wealthy have been going on since the dawn of mankind. Somebody has always got more than somebody else and somebody has always got power over somebody else. These rules apply in Capitalistic, Socialist and Communist societies. You'd think that at some point the mindsets based in jealousy would eventually peter out but they show no signs of doing so in my lifetime.

These "discussions" are both pointless and boring.

glenn1 has got it exactly right. To make society more equitable you shrink government. We have a leader that wishes to do this and in a big way and people are too damned scared to let him do it. That, and the corruption has become so deeply entrenched that career politician's are doing everything they can to maintain the status quo. They didn't run to serve the people. They didn't run for the pay and bennies despite them being top-notch. They ran to get a big piece of the taxpayer pie and a piece that will continue to give for the rest of their lives. Come into office dead broke and leave a multi-millionaire. That's a pretty good gig and we're complicit in it.

Again, we have a leader that wants to change it. Will we let this opportunity slide by? Why would we want to?

Why is it that you always apply one standard to the group that you identify with, and a different and completely unreasonable standard to the group that you don't identify with, and act like no one will notice?
You complain that all a person has to do is put a D next to their name and they'll get votes, but all a person has to do to get your vote is put an R next to their name.
You complain that Hillary is rich and powerful while Trump was born rich and powerful.
You complain that Hillary used public office for personal gain but don't seem to mind that Trump is doing exactly that right now, every weekend when he takes his staff and secret service detail for a stay on the taxpayers dime at a hotel that he owns.
The hypocrisy is just deafening. And you want us to believe that Trump is trying to do anything for the betterment of the American people while he goes around openly doing all the things that he badmouthed his opponents for? This, you say, is change? No, guy, we're not that stupid. Maybe you are.. but we're not.

 

[Vic]

And here's the real thing.. what part of increasing the military budget is shrinking government? What part of a building a 2,000 mile long border will shrink our government? What part of putting DHS over state and local law enforcement agencies (under the thinly veiled guise of getting rid of sanctuary cities) will shrink the federal government? What part of re-escalating the failed war on drugs will shrink the government? What part of putting government in charge of women's bodies will shrink the government? How will getting of public education shrink the gap between the rich and the poor? How does taking away the only opportunity for the poor to pull themselves by their own bootstraps help them to become self-sufficient?
Maybe if you weren't so full of shit, you wouldn't these discussions so pointless and boring.

 

[1sikbITCH]

These are the kind of "libertarians" who support the worst aspects of statism, ie police states, drug prohibition, bloated militaries, and the denial of equal protection of the laws to women, minorities, and immigrants.
In other words, bullshitters. Fascists who believe that liberty means the right to rest their boots on the necks of others.

I have a neighbor who purports to be a libertarian. He believes there should be no law, no government, no police. I said what happens when someone commits an injustice against you. He said you get your neighbors and hang him from a tree. Community enforcement. Ain't nobody got time for no jails. And to make this even fucking crazier, my neighbor is a black dude... who wants to enforce his laws of his neighborhood by lynching folks.

Libertarian-ism seems batshit crazy.

 

[Vic]

I have a neighbor who purports to be a libertarian. He believes there should be no law, no government, no police. I said what happens when someone commits an injustice against you. He said you get your neighbors and hang him from a tree. Community enforcement. Ain't nobody got time for no jails. And to make this even fucking crazier, my neighbor is a black dude... who wants to enforce his laws of his neighborhood by lynching folks.

Libertarian-ism seems batshit crazy.

That's anarchy, not libertarianism. Ask him what should happen if his neighbors were all in on the hypothetical injustice committed against him.

 

[1sikbITCH]

That's anarchy, not libertarianism. Ask him what should happen if his neighbors were all in on the hypothetical injustice committed against him.

That's my thing. Sounds pretty much the same to me and even visiting their website still seems like basic anarchy to me. You can do whatever you want unless you piss off enough neighbors with guns. Government is just a defense force against outside countries.

 

[Vic]

That's my thing. Sounds pretty much the same to me and even visiting their website still seems like basic anarchy to me. You can do whatever you want unless you piss off enough neighbors with guns. Government is just a defense force against outside countries.

I'm certain that it would work in a perfect world, which this one isn't.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Hmm...the democratic party platform for 2016 directly states and supports everything you're talking about. Seems like you pretty much can vote for any democrat and get most of those things.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf

1. "Defense Spending We support a smart, predictable defense budget that meets the strategic challenges we face, not the arbitrary cuts that the Republican Congress enacted as part of sequestration. We must prioritize military readiness by making sure our Active, Reserve, and National Guard components remain the best trained and equipped in the world. We will seek a more agile and flexible force and rid the military of outdated Cold War-era systems. We must end waste in the defense budget. We will audit the Pentagon, launch a high-level commission to review the role of defense contractors, and take greater action against those who have been involved in fraud. And we will ensure that the Department of Defense invests its budget wisely."
2 "Democrats reject the false choice between privacy interests and keeping Americans safe. We need liberty and security, and each makes the other possible. We will protect the privacy and civil liberties of the American people—standing firm against the type of warrantless surveillance of American citizens that flourished during the Bush Administration. We support recent reforms to government bulk data collection programs so the government is not collecting and holding millions of files on innocent Americans."
3. "The "war on drugs" has led to the imprisonment of millions of Americans, disproportionately people of color, without reducing drug use. Whenever possible, Democrats will prioritize prevention and treatment over incarceration when tackling addiction and substance use disorder. We will build on effective models of drug courts, veterans’ courts, and other diversionary programs that seek to give nonviolent offenders opportunities for rehabilitation as opposed to incarceration. Because of conflicting federal and state laws concerning marijuana, we encourage the federal government to remove marijuana from the list of “Schedule 1" federal controlled substances and to appropriately regulate it, providing a reasoned pathway for future legalization. We believe that the states should be laboratories of democracy on the issue of marijuana, and those states that want to decriminalize it or provide access to medical marijuana should be able to do so. We support policies that will allow more research on marijuana, as well as reforming our laws to allow legal marijuana businesses to exist without uncertainty. And we recognize our current marijuana laws have had an unacceptable disparate impact in terms of arrest rates for African Americans that far outstrip arrest rates for whites, despite similar usage rates."
4. Nothing on pharmaceutical regulations, but honestly thats not a widely supported position. I am highly knowledgeable myself about drugs, medicine, hospital administration, and see no real reason to loosen regulations on pharmaceutical sales in a broad capacity, though there are piecemeal things here and there than should probably be tweaked.
5. "While responsible gun ownership is part of the fabric of many communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. We can respect the rights of responsible gun owners while keeping our communities safe."


Honestly it has been well established that if you poll american's on their views on most issues, the democratic party platform fits those views the most. However, people are stupid and don't vote or vote against their own general interests based on emotion or single issue stuff or just plain on racism/tribalism.

"rid the military of outdated Cold War-era systems" = more $$$ for defense contractors. "end waste in the defense budget" = nice talk that everyone does every election cycle, focusing on pennies of inefficiency while ignoring that entire programs are waste. "We will audit the Pentagon, launch a high-level commission to review the role of defense contractors, and take greater action against those who have been involved in fraud", did any of that happen while Democrats had power? The end result is that our defense budget as a percentage of our total has never really dropped to pre-WW2 levels, we've been engaging in bullshit wars for several decades with mostly just terrorism as a reward.

Where has either party made an effort to protect individual privacy? Haven't seen much evidence of that.

Democrats are good on the war on drugs only by comparison to Republicans. Their lead candidate struggled even with marijuana decriminalization, let alone the drugs that contribute significantly to drug-related violence today.

30% profit margins are not normal. The only reason Mylan can increase the prices of the EpiPen year after year is because of totally invented safety considerations and fearmongering. It has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with artificially lengthened IP protection. I hope you realize that the Democrats are actually better than you on this issue; they at least largely voted to open up drug sales with Canada, something Republicans killed.

I didn't make the comparison with Somalia in particular. Somalia is a talking point of certain people on the left when they critique libertarianism. I don't like using it as an example because it limits the case too much. Somalia is supposed to be like a libertarian system because it had virtually no government, but that isn't the real issue. It has to do with the entire world of developing countries, not just Somalia. While I agree that many of these countries have authoritarian governments and hence could not be called libertarian, they resemble a libertarian system in the one way which matters most when we're talking about economic prosperity: these governments do not provide services to their citizens. Services such as the following:

1. a public retirement system, 2. healthcare for the elderly (or for everyone), 3. safety nets for those who lose their jobs, 4. a minimum wage, 5. regulations on business to protect the environment and to curb other abuses, 6. a protected right to strike, 7. free K-12 education, and others.

In the United States, libertarians have opposed all of these things, and/or advocated scaling them way back. Not all self-identified libertarians. I'm talking about doctrinaire libertarians. I'm not going to get into a definitional argument about this, but if you read what the intellectuals of this movement say, and their party platform, it's quite extreme. Moderate conservatives and liberals can call themselves libertarians if they want, but just being sort of fiscally conservative and supporting the Second Amendment isn't really libertarian. The core of it is a belief in minimalist government, not a government which is like 85% of what we have now.

The point of all of this is to look at the world around us, and ask the basic question: which countries supply services like the ones I listed above, and which do not? And how well off economically are the ones who do offer such services versus the ones who do not? The answer provides a staggering contrast; it isn't merely a general trend in favor of the one over the other. ALL governments which supply most/all of these kinds of services are at least in the upper third of countries in the world in terms of economic prosperity, most in the upper 10%:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

While the ones who do not are farther down, most being in the crapper. It's interesting that you point out the fact that many developing countries have authoritarian government. What that proves is that "big government" is not the same thing as authoritarian government. Equating the two is another fallacy of libertarians.

Broadly, this world consists largely of countries with "big government" i.e. high taxes and lots of services provided by the government, and "small government" with low/minimal taxes and little in the way of services. The former are generally democracies, while the latter are generally dictatorships. The former are generally prosperous, while the latter are generally not.

Either way, democracy or dictatorship, it's clear when you look around the world that minimalist government doesn't work.

Even if you look within the United States, you can see that red states which offer fewer services are generally less prosperous than are blue states which offer more.

http://www.businessinsider.com/state-economy-ranking-q4-2015-2016-1/#12-new-york-40

All the arguments over theory aside, the empirical evidence simply does not support this bizarre American only ideology that we call libertarian. It cuts forcefully the other way.

Libertarians are great when it comes to individual liberty. When it comes to matters of economic prosperity, they're terrible. Doing what libertarians want will turn us into a developing country, where every state has an economy like West Virginia or Arkansas, or worse.

What would you call America prior to FDR? It lacked most of those protections you're referring to, and had no problems rising to the top of the world's economic powers. Most safety nets seen in Europe today were actually created post-WW2, von Bismarck's original social democracy being an exception of course (and by today's standards that would be considered minuscule). South Korea in the last twenty years has arguably been the most economically successful government in the world, without a traditional Western welfare state (though they do have public health and a constitutional right to employment).

Africa isn't remotely comparable for a billion different reasons. All you're really showing me is that successful nations are willing and able to adopt a strong welfare state, which is of course true.

EDIT: And just to put things more directly, the pattern you'll also see between nations in terms of success is protection of private property. That's the critical thing lacking in most of Africa, as well as many failed socialist states such as Venezuela. No one bothers creating wealth when there's no guarantee they can keep it.

 

[Jhhnn]

"rid the military of outdated Cold War-era systems" = more $$$ for defense contractors. "end waste in the defense budget" = nice talk that everyone does every election cycle, focusing on pennies of inefficiency while ignoring that entire programs are waste. "We will audit the Pentagon, launch a high-level commission to review the role of defense contractors, and take greater action against those who have been involved in fraud", did any of that happen while Democrats had power? The end result is that our defense budget as a percentage of our total has never really dropped to pre-WW2 levels, we've been engaging in bullshit wars for several decades with mostly just terrorism as a reward.

Where has either party made an effort to protect individual privacy? Haven't seen much evidence of that.

Democrats are good on the war on drugs only by comparison to Republicans. Their lead candidate struggled even with marijuana decriminalization, let alone the drugs that contribute significantly to drug-related violence today.

30% profit margins are not normal. The only reason Mylan can increase the prices of the EpiPen year after year is because of totally invented safety considerations and fearmongering. It has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with artificially lengthened IP protection. I hope you realize that the Democrats are actually better than you on this issue; they at least largely voted to open up drug sales with Canada, something Republicans killed.



What would you call America prior to FDR? It lacked most of those protections you're referring to, and had no problems rising to the top of the world's economic powers. Most safety nets seen in Europe today were actually created post-WW2, von Bismarck's original social democracy being an exception of course (and by today's standards that would be considered minuscule). South Korea in the last twenty years has arguably been the most economically successful government in the world, without a traditional Western welfare state (though they do have public health and a constitutional right to employment).

Africa isn't remotely comparable for a billion different reasons. All you're really showing me is that successful nations are willing and able to adopt a strong welfare state, which is of course true.

EDIT: And just to put things more directly, the pattern you'll also see between nations in terms of success is protection of private property. That's the critical thing lacking in most of Africa, as well as many failed socialist states such as Venezuela. No one bothers creating wealth when there's no guarantee they can keep it.

Defense spending is a giant jobs program, particularly for Repub environs. For stuff we either blow up, give away or let turn obsolete. We're building tanks that the Military doesn't even want. They didn't want the V-22 either. If we switched to making other stuff, we'd just have to do the same thing with it because the American people can't afford to buy it all after it's made. Nobody gets anything for free in the Repub way of thinking, however, so we can't have that, can we? Of course not. Everybody has to work for everything they get unless they're born Rich which is a different matter entirely. So we make stuff to throw it away to satisfy their sense of morality. Well, and to impose the will of our financial elite on the rest of the world insofar as that's possible. We have all this stuff we made that we'll just have to throw away if we don't use it to blow somebody up.

 

[glenn1]

While I agree that, in general, government should be as small as possible, I don't know if this fixes the problem. The whole premise I proposed several posts ago is that even in the absence of government those that have accumulated power will continue to do so. Whether co-opting a large federal government or hiring a private security force, it will be achieved. On a long enough timeline, those situations are equivalent, but only one at least pretends to represent the people (on occasion).

You keep telling me that reducing the size of the government is the answer, but to me it sounds like a Communist telling me that "we just need to work together for the common good." You're describing a situation that simply doesn't exist in the real world. In the absence of a strong central authority, the powerful will just create another.

Whether it's the answer depends on the question you're asking. The most common complaint raised by you and the typical leftists is that the rich use their wealthy to 'buy' political influence to get laws passed and policy decisions made that further enrich them. If that's your concern then yes, reducing the size and scope of definition works to reduce that situation almost by definition. Even if you took it to mean the rich can buy advertising to advocate for their POV on any kind of government issue including social issues, then again limiting government would help. If the government wasn't in the business of deciding for the rest of us who can have an abortion or get married or any other number of things, then again the rich wouldn't need to "purchase influence." You can't have both a busybody nanny state government and eliminate the influence of the rich, basically the rich are the ones setting those busybody government politicians in motion to begin with. Do you think a poor person came up with some stupid shit like "herp derp vaccines cause autism" or "we should ban Happy Meals because otherwise people might make bad food choices"? Hell no, it's pretty much invariably a stupid rich person coming up with these bullshit ideas and using their 'unelected official' power to convince authoritarians that it was their idea in the first place.

Are you even reading my posts? I feel as though at this point you are arguing against a straw man. And yes, current policy has often led to situations in which the upper middle class pay a ridiculous tax burden due to laws meant to target the wealthy (who, of course, can afford to find ways around them). I'm looking at you alternative income tax. However, it doesn't mean that *all* policy is bad. Our government, for instance, could be far more aggressive at breaking up monopolies that exist in inefficient markets, or end the parasitism in finance by simply giving more money to enforce fraud laws. Neither of those involve the shakedown of the rich.

Universal healthcare might be another good policy in the long run. It removes one huge barrier to entry for many markets and thus encourages entrepreneurship.

Now you gotta be pulling my plonker. More often than not the monopoly/monopsony or cartel was created by government actions in the first place. Do you think the local utilities, broadcasters, and telecoms gained their status by out-competing everyone else in the marketplace? Or is it because the government put in enough barriers to entry or even prohibited competitors from entering the marketplace outright? Absent government intervention most 'monopolies' tend to be short-lived and transitory; ask IBM how it's 'monopoly' on mainframes worked out for them or Blockbusters' 'monopoly' on movie rentals turned out.

 

[agent00f]

Whether it's the answer depends on the question you're asking. The most common complaint raised by you and the typical leftists is that the rich use their wealthy to 'buy' political influence to get laws passed and policy decisions made that further enrich them. If that's your concern then yes, reducing the size and scope of definition works to reduce that situation almost by definition. Even if you took it to mean the rich can buy advertising to advocate for their POV on any kind of government issue including social issues, then again limiting government would help. If the government wasn't in the business of deciding for the rest of us who can have an abortion or get married or any other number of things, then again the rich wouldn't need to "purchase influence." You can't have both a busybody nanny state government and eliminate the influence of the rich, basically the rich are the ones setting those busybody government politicians in motion to begin with. Do you think a poor person came up with some stupid shit like "herp derp vaccines cause autism" or "we should ban Happy Meals because otherwise people might make bad food choices"? Hell no, it's pretty much invariably a stupid rich person coming up with these bullshit ideas and using their 'unelected official' power to convince authoritarians that it was their idea in the first place.



Now you gotta be pulling my plonker. More often than not the monopoly/monopsony or cartel was created by government actions in the first place. Do you think the local utilities, broadcasters, and telecoms gained their status by out-competing everyone else in the marketplace? Or is it because the government put in enough barriers to entry or even prohibited competitors from entering the marketplace outright? Absent government intervention most 'monopolies' tend to be short-lived and transitory; ask IBM how it's 'monopoly' on mainframes worked out for them or Blockbusters' 'monopoly' on movie rentals turned out.

LOL @ dumbshit arguing monopolies can't exist using societies that ban them as example.

 

[ivwshane]

LOL @ dumbshit arguing monopolies can't exist using societies that ban them as example.

Apparently he's not familiar with early US history.

 

[qliveur]

https://www.salon.com/2016/12/23/do...o-claim-to-love-freedom-embraced-a-strongman/

Now you're quoting Salon. Great.

https://archive.is/8iWGj

 

[Ichinisan]

These are the kind of "libertarians" who support the worst aspects of statism, ie police states, drug prohibition, bloated militaries, and the denial of equal protection of the laws to women, minorities, and immigrants.
In other words, bullshitters. Fascists who believe that liberty means the right to rest their boots on the necks of others.

Those things are the antithesis of Libertarianism.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Haven't read the whole thread but why wouldn't anarchists support Trump? I makes perfect sense from their perspective as Trump is the most likely to break the status quo due to instability